Re: Reforming the NM process
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> Now seriously, the reasons why a package in Debian is quite different
> from a Debian package outside of Debian should be well-known enough:
> ease of search and use for users and infrastructure for packaging (such
> as the BTS).
We all agree on this one. But we do not agree "on more packages without
quality check" which comes down to "more maintainers without NM checks".
I want more people working for Debian, I want more free software
available, but I don't want that at any cost. I'm ready to make changes
(even some important change) but by experience I know that this work only
if you gradually work in that direction.
So discussing disruptive changes like you mentionned always seems like a
very bad idea to me.
> is, however, I'm lead to believe that a different set of rules would
> serve the community (and me, but not just me) better. That is, I'm
> trying to contribute to the rules. I might be wrong, but I'd be even
> more wrong if I didn't say what I think.
You're discussing things which are too far away from the day to day
reality... this doesn't help us much go forward.
> Furthermore, what I was saying is that those DD's are doing great work
> in spite of alleged lack of social skills, and that entering Debian (or
> instead almost any volunteer community) should not be prevented by a
> lack of social skills.
You can't discuss at this level. Would Debian be better if X or Y was here
or not here ? With specific names, you can think about the question. If X
or Y are anonymous, it doesn't make sense any more.
(And putting names to X and Y will create a flameware since publicly
discussing of the abilities of someone is not very good netiquette)
> > - write some tools to facilitate review and sponsorship
> > - use SVN repo for contributors so that we can see their work
> > over time
> > - web interface to follow the set of packages (with a lit "need upload",
> > "need review", etc.)
> > http://wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance
> Nice to see projects like this. It won't help the problem, though, that
> there still need to be sponsors and there are too few of them. I lack
> the sponsor point of view, but the existing infrastructure in Debian for
> sponsorship is already very good IMO. By making sponsorship easier we
> can improve things but only up to a point.
> > NM process is not about teaching, we don't have the resources for that
> To me it seems to be vice versa: I've received a lot of friendly
> teaching on email@example.com, but no sponsors :)
So you say:
1/ we need to have a process of teaching
2/ teaching on -mentors works quite good
3/ sponsors are difficult to find
4/ but improving the process of sponsorship doesn't improve much
Don't you see how that looks incoherent?
> I received when all I was asking for was sponsors. This is good, of
> course, but your attitude seems wrong to me: as if the problem was in
> the aspiring NM if people give feedback to him/her.
I never said that. Nobody does the perfect thing the first time.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :